posted May 27, 2006 10:52 PM              

Attorney General Ready to Quit Over Raid Dispute

By DAVID JOHNSTON and CARL HULSE, The New York Times

WASHINGTON (May 27) - Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Department told associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterly disputed search of a House member's office, government officials said Friday.

Alex Wong, Getty Images

Alberto Gonzales traveled to Capitol Hill and met with Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, on Friday as Republican leaders explored a formal procedure to cover any future searches.

More Coverage:
· House Leaders Concede FBI Right to Capitol Hill Searches

Talk About It: Post Thoughts

Mr. Gonzales was joined in raising the possibility of resignation by the deputy attorney general, Paul J. McNulty, the officials said. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty told associates that they had an obligation to protect evidence in a criminal case and would be unwilling to carry out any White House order to return the material to Congress.

The potential showdown was averted Thursday when President Bush ordered the evidence to be sealed for 45 days to give Congress and the Justice Department a chance to work out a deal.

The evidence was seized by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents last Saturday night in a search of the office of Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana. The search set off an uproar of protest by House leaders in both parties, who said the intrusion by an executive branch agency into a Congressional office violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. They demanded that the Justice Department return the evidence.

The possibility of resignations underscored the gravity of the crisis that gripped the Justice Department as the administration grappled with how to balance the pressure from its own party on Capitol Hill against the principle that a criminal investigation, especially one involving a member of Congress, should be kept well clear of political considerations.

It is not clear precisely what message Mr. Gonzales delivered to Mr. Bush when they met Thursday morning at the White House, or whether he informed the president of the resignation talk. But hours later, the White House announced that the evidence would be sealed for 45 days in the custody of the solicitor general, the Justice Department official who represents the government before the Supreme Court. That arrangement ended the talk of resignations.

F.B.I. officials would not comment Friday on Mr. Mueller's thinking or on whether his views had been communicated to the president.

The White House said Mr. Bush devised the 45-day plan as a way to cool tempers in Congress and the Justice Department. "The president saw both sides becoming more entrenched," said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's counselor. "Emotions were running high; that's why the president felt he had to weigh in."

Tensions were especially high because officials at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. viewed the Congressional protest, led by Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and House Republicans, as largely a proxy fight for battles likely to come over criminal investigations into other Republicans in Congress.

Separate investigations into the activities of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Randy Cunningham, the former congressman from California, have placed several other Republicans under scrutiny; in the Cunningham case, federal authorities have informally asked to interview nine former staff members of the House Appropriations and Intelligence Committees.

By Friday, the strong words and tense behind-the-scenes meetings of the previous few days had been replaced, in public at least, by conciliatory terms and images of accommodation. Mr. Gonzales traveled to Capitol Hill and met with Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, as Republican leaders explored a formal procedure to cover any future searches.

More From the Times


· In Big Uneasy, Exit Planning Is Obsession
· Bear Hunting Caught in Global Warming Debate
· Iraq Official Says Iran Has Right to Atomic Power Goal
· Panel Is Told Disclosures Pose Danger to Security
· Solution to Greenhouse Gases Is New Nuclear Plants, Bush Says


"We've been working hard already, and we'll continue to do so pursuant to the president's order," Mr. Gonzales told reporters on his way to the meeting.

After the meeting, Mr. Frist said, "I want to know as leader exactly what would happen if there was a similar sort of case."

Senior lawmakers in the House and Senate said their intent was not to prohibit searches of Congressional offices if there was a legitimate reason. But they said the Jefferson case powerfully illustrated how Congress and the administration had no set guidelines for how such a search should be done, what notice was required and how law enforcement and House authorities would interact.

But within the Justice Department and the F.B.I., some officials complained that the 45-day cooling-off arrangement was a politically motivated intrusion into the investigative process. Others said the deal was preferable to what some called the potential "cataclysm" of possible resignations if the department had been ordered to give up the material, as one official briefed on the negotiations described it. This official and others at the department and the F.B.I. were granted anonymity to discuss a continuing criminal case.

CONTINUED
1 | 2 Next Page >

05-27-06 09:12 EDT

- Advertisement -

Copyright © 2006 The New York Times Company

Add The New York Times News Feed to My AOL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More Top News Headlines Headlines
Previous Story: Gangs Rampage Through East Timor Capital
Next Story: Dad Throws Two Kids, Himself Off Balcony

posted May 27, 2006 10:51 PM              

At the Justice Department, there was hope that the courts might quickly resolve the issue. Government lawyers prepared a brief on Friday in opposition to the motion filed by lawyers for Mr. Jefferson seeking the return of materials taken from his office. The F.B.I. search was conducted on the basis of a search warrant issued by a federal judge, T. S. Ellis, in Alexandria, Va.

On Friday, Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi and chairman of the Rules Committee, said he had been meeting with Senate counsel to explore potential procedures and had given Mr. Frist a memorandum on a possible approach.

"The Justice Department is going to have to look at what we put in place and agree to it," Mr. Lott said. "I hope we can work it out."

But he said, "I am perfectly willing to get it on with the administration and take it right to the Supreme Court if they want to argue over it."

To some, the most astounding aspect of the Jefferson clash is that the question has never arisen before in two centuries of assorted Congressional criminality and misconduct.

At the same time, law enforcement officials said the deal did not mean that the Jefferson investigation would stop until the disagreement about the evidence was resolved. Mr. Jefferson has denied wrongdoing, but within law enforcement circles it is regarded as all but certain — based on evidence already collected — that he will face indictment on bribery-related charges.

On Friday, Brent Pfeffer, a former aide to the lawmaker, was sentenced to eight years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy charges related to a kickback scheme involving Mr. Jefferson, identified in court documents only as "Representative A."

Mr. Pfeffer said he was an intermediary in an effort by Mr. Jefferson to obtain money from a Kentucky telecommunications firm for help getting contracts in Nigeria.

The investigation is being handled by the United States attorney's office in Alexandria, which until recently was headed by Mr. McNulty. He was the chief negotiator for the Justice Department in trying to reach an accommodation with the House.

Mr. McNulty seemed like the perfect point person on Capitol Hill for Mr. Gonzales. He was the chief counsel for the House majority leader when former Representative Dick Armey, Republican of Texas, had the job. And Mr. McNulty was chief counsel and spokesman for the Republican majority on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

But it was Mr. McNulty who appeared to lead the protest at the Justice Department, telling House officials that he would quit rather than obey an order to return the search material to Mr. Jefferson.

posted May 27, 2006 11:23 PM              

The 45 day seal on the papers that Bush called for gives Gonzales time to come up with some trumped up interpretation of the Constitutional law and it also gives those Republicans who are crooked in the House time to clear out their own paperwork. The paper shredders in the House must be overheated by now.

FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Is Questioned
Democrat Jefferson Denies Wrongdoing

By Dan Eggen and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 23, 2006; Page A01

An unusual FBI raid of a Democratic congressman's office over the weekend prompted complaints yesterday from leaders in both parties, who said the tactic was unduly aggressive and may have breached the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), who is at the center of a 14-month investigation for allegedly accepting bribes for promoting business ventures in Africa, also held a news conference in which he denied any wrongdoing and denounced the raid on his office as an "outrageous intrusion." Jefferson, who has not been charged, vowed to seek reelection in November.

"There are two sides to every story; there are certainly two sides to this story," he said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "There will be an appropriate time and forum when that can be explained."

The Saturday raid of Jefferson's quarters in the Rayburn House Office Building posed a new political dilemma for the leaders of both parties, who felt compelled to protest his treatment while condemning any wrongdoing by the lawmaker. The dilemma was complicated by new details contained in an 83-page affidavit unsealed on Sunday, including allegations that the FBI had videotaped Jefferson taking $100,000 in bribe money and then found $90,000 of that cash stuffed inside his apartment freezer.

Republican leaders, who previously sought to focus attention on the Jefferson case as a counterpoint to their party's own ethical scandals, said they are disturbed by the raid. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said that he is "very concerned" about the incident and that Senate and House counsels will review it.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress," he said. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that "members of Congress must obey the law and cooperate fully with any criminal investigation" but that "Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent."

Relations between the two Democrats have been rocky. Pelosi refused to appoint Jefferson to the chairmanship of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee after the 2002 election, and early this month she called for an investigation of his case by the House ethics committee. Last week, the committee announced it would investigate Jefferson and Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), who is also the subject of a federal corruption probe.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, asked about the raid during an unrelated news conference in Washington, declined to discuss the case in detail but said "the executive branch intends to work with the Congress to allay" any concerns.

"I will admit that these were unusual steps that were taken in response to an unusual set of circumstances," he said. "I'll just say that."

About 15 FBI agents, wearing suits, entered Jefferson's office in the Rayburn House Office Building about 7:15 p.m. Saturday and left about 1 p.m. Sunday. Authorities said it was the first time the FBI had raided the office of a sitting congressman.

The FBI is investigating allegations that Jefferson, acting as a member of Congress, took hundreds of thousand of dollars in bribes to promote high-tech business ventures in Nigeria, Cameroon and Ghana. Two people -- Brett Pfeffer and Vernon L. Jackson -- have pleaded guilty to bribing Jefferson to promote iGate Inc., a Louisville-based company that was marketing Internet and cable television technology in Africa.

Jefferson and his wife, Andrea, are targets of the investigation, and the government is moving closer to deciding whether to indict, according to those familiar with the probe.

Legal experts were divided on the legality and propriety of the FBI's raid, but many said that it could raise serious evidentiary problems for prosecutors at trial. In scores of cases of alleged congressional wrongdoing, federal prosecutors and FBI agents have most commonly sought to issue subpoenas for documents rather than conducting an impromptu raid on congressional property, experts said.

At issue is the "speech or debate" clause of the Constitution -- language intended to shield lawmakers from intimidation by the executive branch. Historically, courts have interpreted the clause broadly, legal experts said.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), in an e-mail to colleagues with the subject line "on the edge of a constitutional confrontation," called the Saturday night raid "the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime." He urged President Bush to discipline or fire "whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation."

Many legal experts and defense lawyers agreed with Gingrich. Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor who served as solicitor and deputy general counsel of the House for 11 years, called the raid "an intimidating tactic that has never before been used against the legislative branch."

"The Framers, who were familiar with King George III's disdain for their colonial legislatures, would turn over in their graves," Tiefer said.

Washington defense lawyer Stanley M. Brand, a former general counsel for the House who has represented numerous lawmakers accused of wrongdoing, also questioned the government's strategy.

"This is really an over-the-top move, and it could create some real blow-back problems for them in the courts," he said.

But Viet D. Dinh, a former assistant attorney general in the Bush administration who is now a Georgetown University law professor, said that "the raid on his offices itself does not define a constitutional issue."

The constitutional privilege for lawmakers does not "expand to insulate everything that goes on in a congressional office, especially if there's allegations of abuse of process or bribery," Dinh said. ". . . The fine line is whether or not it relates to a legislative process or not, not whether they've raided his office."

The legal debate and protests acted as something of a diversion for Jefferson, whose political future becomes more precarious with every new development. He recently drew a Republican opponent, New Orleans lawyer Joseph M. Lavigne, who announced his candidacy in late April, and others are likely to jump in before the Aug. 11 filing deadline.

Jefferson's case also complicates what Democrats had hoped would be one of their more potent election-year arguments: that a culture of corruption instigated by former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff and some lawmakers and congressional aides has infected the GOP, and that Democrats would usher in a new era of honest leadership.

"As bad as people want to say the Abramoff situation was, it didn't lead to any House offices getting raided," said Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Jefferson had taken a defiant and assertive stance in recent appearances, but he appeared softer-spoken and more hesitant yesterday. "There's a criminal investigation going on regarding this, and my lawyers have advised me not to discuss, and I will not discuss any of the alleged facts in the case," he said, wringing his hands as he faced the cameras. "That would be extraordinarily foolhardy to avoid their advice."

Jefferson said of his political future: "I expect to run for reelection, but that's a matter that's down the road."

John Maginnis, editor of the Louisiana Political Fax Weekly newsletter, says he is always surprised when politicians get caught in such acts of malfeasance. "It's not a very good reflection on the state to have your congressman accused of taking bribes at the same time Louisianans are trying to get money out of the federal government," Maginnis said, referring to the recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

Staff writers Allan Lengel and Linton Weeks and research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

posted May 27, 2006 11:36 PM              

The President's Bad Move
In trying to defuse a showdown with Congress, Mr. Bush created another problem.
Saturday, May 27, 2006; Page A24

PRESIDENT Bush's action to seal the papers seized from the congressional office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) may have been a well-intentioned effort to defuse a confrontation between the executive and legislative branches. It was also a mistake. In trying to solve one problem, Mr. Bush created another: Presidential intervention in an ongoing criminal investigation is a bad idea and a worse precedent.

Imagine the uproar -- and it's not hard to do so -- if the target were a Republican lawmaker, not a Democrat, and the president ordered the seized information put on ice for 45 days, as the election drew closer. And remember the blowup over the involvement of Clinton White House officials in an FBI investigation into alleged misconduct by employees of the White House travel office. There is good reason to have firewalls between criminal investigators and White House officials.

It's precisely the fact that prosecutors are investigating Republican lawmakers that makes the president's intervention so ominous here. Certainly, investigations of sitting legislators have to be conducted with respect for their constitutional role; we have expressed support for the possible need to search lawmakers' offices under extraordinary circumstances and reservations about the way it unfolded in Mr. Jefferson's case. But it sends a chilling message to agents and career prosecutors working on cases involving other lawmakers to know that the president is on call to second-guess them if members are unhappy with the way their investigation is proceeding.

Mr. Bush has other interests here -- his diminished political standing and his need for congressional help on other issues, such as immigration reform -- that are not necessarily congruent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement. If it were necessary to take this step -- and we're not convinced it was -- there was a better way to handle it, which was to have the Justice Department make and announce the decision. The report in today's Post by Dan Eggen and Peter Baker -- that the Justice Department signaled to the White House that the top three law enforcement officials would quit if ordered to return Mr. Jefferson's documents -- only underscores the inadvisability of White House interference here.